A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[Easyrider]

I should clarify that by independent I meant that most of the books of the bible were written by different authors. I was trying to point out that it is a collection of books assembled over a long period of time. In addition, as a Christian, I have a huge problem when people take the bible out of context and twist it's meaning to suit their own desires. I see a lot of that going on with people's signatures in this forum. However, it doesn't make me want to throw God out of my life. Instead, it prompted me to do some independent study. I get real frustrated by the guys who won't read anything but the KJV. I think those are the ones you are referring to as bible worshipers. Another good name would be translation worshipers.

Independant research is good. It is certainly better than coping volumns of web pages without any real understanding about what is said ON those web pages!

This assumes that (1) that the web page authors didn't exercise independent judgment in their writings and investigations and, (2) that the person who linked the information first didn't exercise independent judgment / investigation in deciding what information to reference. Lots of assumptions on your part there, Goat.

[Goat]

I should clarify that by independent I meant that most of the books of the bible were written by different authors. I was trying to point out that it is a collection of books assembled over a long period of time. In addition, as a Christian, I have a huge problem when people take the bible out of context and twist it's meaning to suit their own desires. I see a lot of that going on with people's signatures in this forum. However, it doesn't make me want to throw God out of my life. Instead, it prompted me to do some independent study. I get real frustrated by the guys who won't read anything but the KJV. I think those are the ones you are referring to as bible worshipers. Another good name would be translation worshipers.

Independant research is good. It is certainly better than coping volumns of web pages without any real understanding about what is said ON those web pages!

This assumes that (1) that the web page authors didn't exercise independent judgment in their writings and investigations and, (2) that the person who linked the information first didn't exercise independent judgment / investigation in deciding what information to reference. Lots of assumptions on your part there, Goat.

No assumptions on my part what so ever. I have looked at what you have copied onto this forum, and I have found that information wanting in accuracy and clarity.

[achilles12604]

I should clarify that by independent I meant that most of the books of the bible were written by different authors. I was trying to point out that it is a collection of books assembled over a long period of time. In addition, as a Christian, I have a huge problem when people take the bible out of context and twist it's meaning to suit their own desires. I see a lot of that going on with people's signatures in this forum. However, it doesn't make me want to throw God out of my life. Instead, it prompted me to do some independent study. I get real frustrated by the guys who won't read anything but the KJV. I think those are the ones you are referring to as bible worshipers. Another good name would be translation worshipers.

Independant research is good. It is certainly better than coping volumns of web pages without any real understanding about what is said ON those web pages!

This assumes that (1) that the web page authors didn't exercise independent judgment in their writings and investigations and, (2) that the person who linked the information first didn't exercise independent judgment / investigation in deciding what information to reference. Lots of assumptions on your part there, Goat.

No assumptions on my part what so ever. I have looked at what you have copied onto this forum, and I have found that information wanting in accuracy and clarity.

I saw Alexander mentioned and I decided to read on. One simple question for Goat. . .

How about the sources I listed? Many of them are secular and I even have used a couple atheist sources. With the one exception which was pointed out to me by Lotan (thanks by the way), my sources are always documented and from experts (IE PH'd's, archeologists, etc.) in their fields. Are those good sources? If not, then why are those bad sources while other sources used by the non-christian side (IE wikipedia, infidels, etc) are any better, especially when those sources frequently don't even name the author?

[achilles12604]

By the way Goat,

I just looked back a ways and I have found you have not refered to a single source other than very limited quotes from the bible, in at least he last 7 pages. I will keep looking, but as far as giving support to arguments through ligitament sources, you are a little lacking my friend.

[Goat]

By the way Goat,

I just looked back a ways and I have found you have not refered to a single source other than very limited quotes from the bible, in at least he last 7 pages. I will keep looking, but as far as giving support to arguments through ligitament sources, you are a little lacking my friend.

Shrug. So far, I basically didn't.. because I pointed out how his sources suck.

From his attitude, I am quite sure he would dismiss any Jewish sources I have about the Tanakh. I suspect he would dismiss them as being 'anti-christian'.

I also USE my own words, rather than copy web sites.

[achilles12604]

By the way Goat,

I just looked back a ways and I have found you have not refered to a single source other than very limited quotes from the bible, in at least he last 7 pages. I will keep looking, but as far as giving support to arguments through ligitament sources, you are a little lacking my friend.

Shrug. So far, I basically didn't.. because I pointed out how his sources suck.

From his attitude, I am quite sure he would dismiss any Jewish sources I have about the Tanakh. I suspect he woudl dismiss them as being 'anti-christian'.

I also USE my own words, rather than copy web sites.

Fair enough. Since I have provided my sources as well as other sources which support my original sources (Dr. John McRay's archeology supporting Dr. William Craig's explaination of miracles for example) perhaps you could share with me your sources as well as why they are good ones to support your view. After all that is what this arguement is all about right?

If you decide to continue to use your own ideas (something which I do all the time so we agree that personal evaltuation of the evidence is something of great value), I would suggest offering further explainations as to why your ideas are correct and his are wrong. Simply saying "his sources suck" is hardly evidence against them.

As a last note, I love Jewish sources. I refer to the Talmud, Josephus, the old Testament, Egyptian Hieroglyphs, the dead sea scrolls and others on a regular basis. In fact, I often wonder to myself why more Jews do not read or understand their own writings as much as I do, and I am not Jewish. So feel free to quote your sources, but be prepared to defend them as I have done with mine.

[Goat]

By the way Goat,

I just looked back a ways and I have found you have not refered to a single source other than very limited quotes from the bible, in at least he last 7 pages. I will keep looking, but as far as giving support to arguments through ligitament sources, you are a little lacking my friend.

Shrug. So far, I basically didn't.. because I pointed out how his sources suck.

From his attitude, I am quite sure he would dismiss any Jewish sources I have about the Tanakh. I suspect he woudl dismiss them as being 'anti-christian'.

I also USE my own words, rather than copy web sites.

Fair enough. Since I have provided my sources as well as other sources which support my original sources (Dr. John McRay's archeology supporting Dr. William Craig's explaination of miracles for example) perhaps you could share with me your sources as well as why they are good ones to support your view. After all that is what this arguement is all about right?

If you decide to continue to use your own ideas (something which I do all the time so we agree that personal evaltuation of the evidence is something of great value), I would suggest offering further explainations as to why your ideas are correct and his are wrong. Simply saying "his sources suck" is hardly evidence against them.

As a last note, I love Jewish sources. I refer to the Talmud, Josephus, the old Testament, Egyptian Hieroglyphs, the dead sea scrolls and others on a regular basis. In fact, I often wonder to myself why more Jews do not read or understand their own writings as much as I do, and I am not Jewish. So feel free to quote your sources, but be prepared to defend them as I have done with mine.

When it comes to Jospehus, you do realise that the references that are to Jesus of nazareth are suspect. Antiquties 18 was apparently inserted in the 4th century, and antiquties 20 appears to be a copiers gloss (the phrase 'the one called christ' is exactly as it appears in a couple of the gospels). Not only that, much of the Christian reference to the talmud are out of context, and distorted, by Christians. If you really want to know what the Talmud is talking about, you have to read it in context, and get the commnetaries on it.

[achilles12604]

By the way Goat,

I just looked back a ways and I have found you have not refered to a single source other than very limited quotes from the bible, in at least he last 7 pages. I will keep looking, but as far as giving support to arguments through ligitament sources, you are a little lacking my friend.

Shrug. So far, I basically didn't.. because I pointed out how his sources suck.

From his attitude, I am quite sure he would dismiss any Jewish sources I have about the Tanakh. I suspect he woudl dismiss them as being 'anti-christian'.

I also USE my own words, rather than copy web sites.

Fair enough. Since I have provided my sources as well as other sources which support my original sources (Dr. John McRay's archeology supporting Dr. William Craig's explaination of miracles for example) perhaps you could share with me your sources as well as why they are good ones to support your view. After all that is what this arguement is all about right?

If you decide to continue to use your own ideas (something which I do all the time so we agree that personal evaltuation of the evidence is something of great value), I would suggest offering further explainations as to why your ideas are correct and his are wrong. Simply saying "his sources suck" is hardly evidence against them.

As a last note, I love Jewish sources. I refer to the Talmud, Josephus, the old Testament, Egyptian Hieroglyphs, the dead sea scrolls and others on a regular basis. In fact, I often wonder to myself why more Jews do not read or understand their own writings as much as I do, and I am not Jewish. So feel free to quote your sources, but be prepared to defend them as I have done with mine.

When it comes to Jospehus, you do realise that the references that are to Jesus of nazareth are suspect. Antiquties 18 was apparently inserted in the 4th century, and antiquties 20 appears to be a copiers gloss (the phrase 'the one called christ' is exactly as it appears in a couple of the gospels). Not only that, much of the Christian reference to the talmud are out of context, and distorted, by Christians. If you really want to know what the Talmud is talking about, you have to read it in context, and get the commnetaries on it.

Yes I do realize the questions surrounding Josephus. As for the Talmud, does it or does it not both mention Jesus and also claim that he was a magician who led the people astray? YES or NO.


Also are you aware that archeology has found an arabic document which includes all of Josephus writings EXCEPT for the parts inserted by Christians? This would suggest that the orignal core is valid and the sections in question were added later. Unfortunatly for you this does allow for evidence of both the existence of Jesus as well as his unique abilities.

[Goat]

By the way Goat,

I just looked back a ways and I have found you have not refered to a single source other than very limited quotes from the bible, in at least he last 7 pages. I will keep looking, but as far as giving support to arguments through ligitament sources, you are a little lacking my friend.

Shrug. So far, I basically didn't.. because I pointed out how his sources suck.

From his attitude, I am quite sure he would dismiss any Jewish sources I have about the Tanakh. I suspect he woudl dismiss them as being 'anti-christian'.

I also USE my own words, rather than copy web sites.

Fair enough. Since I have provided my sources as well as other sources which support my original sources (Dr. John McRay's archeology supporting Dr. William Craig's explaination of miracles for example) perhaps you could share with me your sources as well as why they are good ones to support your view. After all that is what this arguement is all about right?

If you decide to continue to use your own ideas (something which I do all the time so we agree that personal evaltuation of the evidence is something of great value), I would suggest offering further explainations as to why your ideas are correct and his are wrong. Simply saying "his sources suck" is hardly evidence against them.

As a last note, I love Jewish sources. I refer to the Talmud, Josephus, the old Testament, Egyptian Hieroglyphs, the dead sea scrolls and others on a regular basis. In fact, I often wonder to myself why more Jews do not read or understand their own writings as much as I do, and I am not Jewish. So feel free to quote your sources, but be prepared to defend them as I have done with mine.

When it comes to Jospehus, you do realise that the references that are to Jesus of nazareth are suspect. Antiquties 18 was apparently inserted in the 4th century, and antiquties 20 appears to be a copiers gloss (the phrase 'the one called christ' is exactly as it appears in a couple of the gospels). Not only that, much of the Christian reference to the talmud are out of context, and distorted, by Christians. If you really want to know what the Talmud is talking about, you have to read it in context, and get the commnetaries on it.

Yes I do realize the questions surrounding Josephus. As for the Talmud, does it or does it not both mention Jesus and also claim that he was a magician who led the people astray? YES or NO.

And do you know when that was written? It was written in either the late 3rd century or early 4th century. That was more than enough time for the Rabbi's to react to the extreme negativity of the early Christians (after all, the Gospel of Barrabbas basically accused the Jews of murder).
If you look at the account, the version of the story that is
in the talmud is very careful to recite what the laws about executions were, and to very carefully say that the laws were followed. This is in direct contradiction to the gospels.
(By the way, the 'being hung' in the Talmud was NOT cruxifiction. What it was is strangulation, followed by the display of the body until just before sundown)

Also are you aware that archeology has found an arabic document which includes all of Josephus writings EXCEPT for the parts inserted by Christians? This would suggest that the orignal core is valid and the sections in question were added later. Unfortunatly for you this does allow for evidence of both the existence of Jesus as well as his unique abilities.

Yes, I am aware of that. Is it so surprising that a 10th(?) century document , written in a highly Islamic culture, would remove overtly Christian references? It just means that documents were modified depending on politics and religion.

For you to demonstrate that the original actually had those references in there, there would have to be a very lucky find, and an older extant copy of Josephus's antiquities would have to be found. The problem the people promoting
Antiquities 18 as genuine have is that there are no references to it early than Erebus's reference in the 4th century. That is despite the fact that Orgien quoted extensively from Antiquities 18 when it comes to his references to John the Baptist. The fact that Orgien was using Antiquities 18 as a source, yet was unaware of this passage all togather does not bode well for it's orginality.
In case you were unaware, Orgien was writing in the 3rd century ce.

Therefore, we have no secondary or tertiary sources for the reference to Antiquites 18 to Jesus before the 4th century.

[achilles12604]

And do you know when that was written? It was written in either the late 3rd century or early 4th century. That was more than enough time for the Rabbi's to react to the extreme negativity of the early Christians (after all, the Gospel of Barrabbas basically accused the Jews of murder).
If you look at the account, the version of the story that is
in the talmud is very careful to recite what the laws about executions were, and to very carefully say that the laws were followed. This is in direct contradiction to the gospels.
(By the way, the 'being hung' in the Talmud was NOT cruxifiction. What it was is strangulation, followed by the display of the body until just before sundown)

So they invented a man that never existed just to write about him and call him names?


I think it is more likely that Jesus did exist, did do things that pissed them off, and they wrote about him at a later time.

Which explaination makes more sense?